[FoRK] Paper vs Digital maps -- tip of an iceberg?

Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca
Sun May 30 16:11:02 PDT 2010

--- On Sun, 5/30/10, Marty Halvorson <marty at halvorson.us> wrote:
> Digital is not always better.  It is however a lot
> more convenient than the analog equivalent.  And I
> suspect that's the reason for everything becoming digital.

Hi Marty,

"Convenient" in what respect? E.g. if I am short of space and in need of having a view that is both large-picture (e.g. all of western Canada) *and* full details, it's really hard to beat paper for convenience. With even a fairly large-screen personal navigation device or netbook/tablet, I can only get moderately large-picture. And I can only get it at the cost of detail. That is, the farther out I zoom to get big-picture, the more detail I lose in order to avoid screen clutter. Just as one example.

Or are you speaking of convenience in some other context?


More information about the FoRK mailing list